Re: Fossils and Pseudoscience

Phil Nicholls (
18 Jan 1995 13:35:22 GMT

n article <3ff6pl$> (Pat Dooley)

<< deletions>>

> >Well, let's see, since apocrine glands open onto hair follicles
> >it seems to me that a reduction in the number of hair follicles
> >sort of explains why we have so few apocrine glands. If you
> >will check the references I posted you will see that they show
> >the distribution pattern of eccrine glands in chimpanzees and
> >rhesus monkeys is identifical to that in humans.
> I have seen previous AAT opponents claim we weren't hairless
> because humans actually had more hair follicles than chimpanzees.
> Can't you guys make up your minds?

Yes, well the AAH proponents have been such models of
consistency in this debate. However, I believe I am correct
on this one.

> You also keep muddying the waters on the ratio issue. Whether
> or not other apes have eccrine glands in similar places to
> humans is irrelevant; it is about what you woul expect. The
> key point you keep evading is the ratio of eccrine to acropine
> glands.

If you will go back and re-read the sweating article I posted
you will see that I did provide an explanation for the
increase in eccrine sweat glands. This, combined with the
fact that apocrine glands in pongids are fewer and reduced in
size means that this tread began before the hominid/pongid
split. As I indicated in my sweating article, there is a
neurophysiological reason for going with eccrine sweating, one
that will become much more acute as relative brain size
increases. I even made a prediction -- that the number of
eccrine glands will be correlated to relative brain size.

I am beginning to think that you never bothered to read that

And somehow, I am not surprised.

Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
University of Ediacara
"Semper Alouatta"